As we approach this election we should ask ourselves, “How many presidents have we had? How many of them were unsavory characters? What was the reaction of the people? How did these issues affect their ability to serve? Do we even know of the skeletons in each of their closets? Have we ever been so hell bent on finding and exposing them? Is that really the premier issue when electing a leader?”
So I ask you, are we electing a leader who will protect our country from enemies and hopefully institute more protection for the unborn and the constitution – or are we choosing a dorm mother (father) or nanny for our children? The job description should put the focus on the relevant questions.
Why is our already morally flawed society hell bent on continuing to drive our political narrative ever deeper toward unapologetic sleaze during this election season?
At this point, more people are ‘aware’ of the Trump lewd comments and come on debacle than are ‘aware’ of his political positions.
This Election, Are Political Discussions Creating a Nation of Voyeurs?
The narrative is blatantly being dictated to us – even by fellow conservatives. Why are we all spending so much time defending or comparing Trump’s sins instead of working on matters relative to the governing of our country? Russia is calling all of her citizens home, terrorists (as well as drug lords, gangs, and rapists) are flooding across our borders unchecked, and our relationships with our allies are at an all time low.
We have an economy that is in the tank, rampant unemployment, hatred between ethnic groups and law enforcement, leaders who create laws out of thin air, and a bloody war on our unborn. There are so many pressing, national issues to discuss and discern before we cast our votes next month. Yet, here we are.
I’ve seen otherwise faithful friends post obscene photos, comparing Michelle O’s feigned outrage at Trump while calling Beyonce a ‘role model’ for young girls – including her daughters. These memes have graphic photos to which I would prefer never be exposed. Not to mention that I cannot even allow my grandchildren to look over my shoulder while perusing Facebook.
Please, For The Love of God, Stop It!
While I am well aware of the repugnant behavior of some men, I have had more than enough of the details. There is no defense and no excuse. No comparison will ever resonate with those who are not like-minded. Levels of guilt need no more comparison and, if you have not picked up on the free flowing hypocrisy by now, I doubt that endless, salacious repetition will do the trick.
We get it. Some men are pigs. Many men are pigs. Some outgrow the propensity. Some do not. Do we even know who does or does not? Is this the best tack to take when choosing a president? Taking part in the disgusting pornographic exchanges going on at this point will fail to change anything – anyone.
Leadership Litmus Test?
The last time I checked, the oath of office doesn’t include promising to be chaste and pure. If that were the litmus test, I doubt that many of our leaders (teachers, judges, or even parents) would pass muster. This is a political issue that has moral connotations, yes. But there is no excusable reason to create a tell-all tabloid expose’ of potential presidents. The discernment for a president is also certainly not a vetting for seminary. That all candidates are personally flawed is a given. To one extent or another, is that not true of us all?
How a president will lead, in relation to our government and the will of the people he represents, is the pressing issue. When we are deciding who to vote for during an election season, more appropriate questions come to mind. What are their plans, who are their advisors, their cabinet members? How will they address the constitution, religious freedom, the right to life, or national defense?
Narrow Vision or Larger Picture?
It might also be beneficial to recall that there are three branches of government. The president has to work with the legislative and judicial branches, so his word alone is not Gospel or rule of law. The party platform he represents, has a certain degree of effect on our government as well, as does his choice of Vice-President. All of these pieces of the political puzzle comprise one, more complete and larger, picture. The various trees make up the government forest, so to speak. Each of these aspects needs careful consideration. A clearer view of the overall picture will give us an opportunity to derive a more complete answer.
Our Country Needs Our Focus
What I see here is an unbelievable, consistent diatribe pertaining to unsavory characteristics. The degree of titillation is palatable. Look at how we are talking and what our eyes are seeing and what our ears are hearing and what our minds are thinking. This has to have the devil giggling at our foolishness. Instead of focusing on issues – real political, nation and constitution saving issues – we are distracted to the point of a comatose, spit-flecked nutty over the one thing that is least relevant to the election. Yes, character matters, but it is only one facet of a secular leader. A strong love of country, the constitution, and capable leadership ability – these are the traits that make a president.
Let us not give in to the willful distraction dished up and served to us. Pray, focus, discern, learn, and vote for the best possible outcome for our country.
God Bless America!
24 thoughts on “Is This Election About Smut or Governing?”
For Mrs. Clinton, this election is about smut.
To paraphrase FDR, all she has to offer is smut itself.
This is, in large part, due to: 1) the fact that the candidate has few, if any, political positions; 2) to the extent that his campaign has put forth positions on his behalf, they’re often lacking in detail or coherence; and 3) when he’s asked to explain his positions, he often cannot do so.
Even if we restrict ourselves to these criteria, Trump doesn’t pass muster. As mentioned earlier, to the extent that his plans have begun to at least resemble the types of substantive policies you’d expect of a presidential campaign, they often don’t add up. His advisors include alt-right racists (Bannon), series sexual harassers (Ailes), and Putin associates (Manafort). He’s shown significant ignorance when it comes to the constitution, threatened freedom of the press, is not likely to give two hoots about either religion or abortion, and has been widely denounced by national security experts on both sides of the aisle as being fit to be Commander in Chief.
Additionally, he has violated our democratic norms; calling for the imprisonment of his political opponent, voter intimidation at polling sites, and has called into question the very legitimacy of our electoral process. Sorry, even if you leave to the side his admissions of sexual assault, as well as his accusers’, he’s still unfit.
Great article Mrs.Jones. Selective liberal morality is suffocating us.Liberal Judges and this Liberal Supreme Court is deconstructing our Country little by little. The nomination of Supreme Judges should be a constant reminder where our eyes and mind should be.
Thank you for the kind words, Martha.
I suppose one could challenge your very clever dance around outrage, requirements for the highest office in the land and other rationalizations, but one cannot look the other way when it comes to what our church and what the bible advocates…welcome the stranger….build a wall and ban the Syrian refugees (who are persecuted, but our fear of terrorists makes us paint everyone with the same brush…we say not in my state and not in my community – and then we go to church on Sunday and tell God how much we love him and serve him; we are aliens…ban the Muslims (albeit temporarily), love one another….we need to take care of our own interests before anyone else.
Somehow, looking the other way doesn’t strike me as living our Christian values and following a man who we called teacher but we never learned the lessons and at the age of 33 was crucified…. for our salvation. We must be in this world not of this world.
Yet, nowhere in this piece is there a suggestion to look the other way or any rationalization. I am simply ready to move on to more issues dealing with actual governing – after having thoroughly indicted those who are guilty of salatious words or deeds. This surely is not the only test for a leader.
Your other points are spun out of thin air, since they aren’t mentioned in any concrete form in the article.
I don’t know about you, but my Bible doesn’t say that I have to welcome strangers before I take care of my own. Its sad, but sometimes to protect the larger group you must excise the good with the bad. Just like my breast cancer. I have the genetic mutation BRCA1 and I got breast cancer at age 28 while pregnant. Chemo negatively effected most of my body (but not my baby in utereo) and killed the cancer. For me and my unborn child, killing the cancer was more important than losing my hair, throwing up all the time, having mouth ulcers, ending up with neuropathy, etc. Even after going through that horrible process of chemo, I still needed bilateral mastectomies-even though one breast wasn’t influenced at all. I had to make sure there weren’t any pockets of cancer cells in my system. To get criminals out of our (the US) system, we need to ban new ones from coming into our country. We have enough criminals of our own that need prosecution (not persecution) that we shouldn’t stretch ourselves so thin to police the world and open wide the doors to people from places of known hostility to the US. I don’t think anyone is saying all immigrants are criminals and need to be prosecuted, but it is fact that some of them are. They are the cancer cells in their particular ethnic group/country. To exclude immigrants from known hostile areas to the US, yes, many are undeservingly prevented from entering the US, but it is done to protect the US.
Quite a simple decision: the oath of office of President of the US establishes the criteria for the position and its duties: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (and the SCOTUS is the constitutional body which defines the intricacies of the Constitution). So the answer is quite simple, who is best committed to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.
Well Trump reckons his pro-abortion sister would make a good Justice, so good luck with the idea of him as being pro-life.
He has also already mentioned one of the main Priests for Life, and other highly moral Catholics as potential advisers. I don’t think anyone is saying Trump is the perfect candidate, but he is the better one morally speaking. See above.
Another thing — you really a woman is being phony if she is outraged by sexual assault?
No where in this piece is anyone being a phony mentioned. You might want to give it a re-read for content.
You said Michelle Obama’s outrage was “feigned”.
I think the author is trying to draw the line between outrage Mrs. Obama has for Trumps 20 year old statements verses the author’s outrage of blatantly visible/presently visible immorality (Beyonce in concert perhaps) that Mrs. Obama is proud to call a role model for her daughters.
You might have a valid point if Michelle Obama was consistently outraged by overt sexuality. Just this year she took her young daughters to a Beyonce’ and Jay Z concert. The same Beyonce’ who sings a new version of ‘Crazy in Love’ in a ‘Fifty Shades’ trailer.
Google Beyonce’ and click on images. You’ll get an eyefull. You might just want to check out the lyrics on these ‘stars’ the Obama females swoon over. Degrading women is their job description. Dupilcity? Hyprocritic? You tell me.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6188746/beyonce-michelle-obama-on-the-run-chicago
You are actually saying — actually saying! — that she should expect her daughters to be subject to unwanted groping because they’re Beyonce fans. That her outrage over Trump’s boasting is “feigned”.
Nice attempt at diversion. The author is talking about Mrs Obama’s hypocrisy, not her daughters’ actions and feelings. Of course many children are attracted to heavily commercially promoted pop stars. If Mrs O was honestly outraged at Trump’s comments, to maintain any semblance of logic she would have to be at least a little outraged at Beyoncé’s antics. Or at the very least be neutral about them. But no, she enthusiastically embraces them.
You’re agreeing with me then.
Now that it’s the Republican nominee who has a history of adultery, suddenly those things don’t matter. Got it.
It is dregging up 10-30 year old possible instances with no proof to distract us from the criminal activities of the other candidate.
Give the piece another read: “While I am well aware of the repugnant behavior of some men, I have had more than enough of the details. There is no defense and no excuse. No comparison will ever resonate…we get it. Some men are pigs. Many men are pigs. Some outgrow the propensity. Some do not. Do we even know who does or does not? Is this the best tack to take when choosing a president? Taking part in the disgusting pornographic exchanges going on at this point will fail to change anything – anyone.”
Where did you get the idea that the point is that these things don’t matter? But can we not at least consider other topics or is this the most important standard to consider when choosing a secular leader?
I have the feeling that during the 90’s, when the allegations were made about Bill Clinton, that the issue was a deal-breaker for you.
Sexual misdeeds stink. PERIOD! When both candidates have historical sexual misdeeds or complicity/promotion of those misdeeds, the issue becomes more about the issues and less of a “dredge up as much dirt from as far back as it takes to smear this candidate”. I mean let’s call what is really out there on the table… Trump made unsavory sexual harassment comments and he’s been married 3 times. Hilary was complicit with her husband’s misdeeds, actively promotes promiscuity and abortion, and known (although many still don’t like to admit it) to lie to the FBI, etc etc. If the names were removed and somehow the situations randomized (ie you couldn’t tell which candidate it was, but the ‘crimes’ would be similar), which candidate is more moral? Its not a hard or un-obvious imbalance…
You should have worked harder to elect Romney when you had the chance.
All you can do now is celebrate the victory of Democrat immorality and Move On.